My Thoughts on Michael Voris' Resignation from "Church Militant"

It was announced today that Michael Voris of "Church Militant" was asked to resign from his position "for breaching the Church Militant morality clause. The board has accepted his resignation." This priest prays for his repentance and conversion, and trusts in the mercy of God to bring salvation to his soul. It only takes one good confession, and I pray and trust that Michael will make it.

However, the truly scandalous part of Church Militant's announcement is the following statement: "The Board of Directors has chosen not to disclose Michael's private matters to the public. The apostolate will be praying for him, and we kindly ask you to do the same."

How audacious! In recent years, Church Militant has declared war on everything traditional. Michael Voris and Christine Niles are the main offenders, seeking out any and all information and "dirt" regarding the traditional movement, the SSPX, traditional publications, etc. And it doesn't stop there - Church Militant has made a business of exposing others' private matters, and it is sickening. Whenever they get a chance, they are more than happy to expose a priest, religious order, private information that has not been proven, and so on... How dare they have the audacity to now ask for "privacy" for a person who has made himself public, when they never gave the benefit of the doubt to others?

It is this priest's prayer that Church Militant goes extinct, which will benefit all areas of the Church, traditional or not.

My Thoughts on "Traditionis Custodes": Eight Reasons Why this Priest is Disturbed

 I will preface this post by stating that I do not consider myself to be a "traditionalist," at least not in the ways the term is often used today. I accept, believe, and teach everything that the Catholic Church holds to be revealed by God - nothing more, nothing less. I do not offer the Traditional Mass exclusively, but I have serious problems with the way folks are being treated when they simply want to worship in a rite that is unquestionably Catholic, even if they wish to do so exclusively.

For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, Pope Benedict issued his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in 2007 allowing a wide use of the Traditional Latin Mass (the Mass that had been celebrated in the Catholic Church for over 1,500 years). He desired that it be a part of normal parish life and celebrated in parishes alongside the current "new" or Novus Ordo Mass. However, in 2021, Pope Francis issued his motu proprio Traditionis Custodes which practically reversed the decisions of Summorum Pontificum, signaling that the Traditional Mass would soon be phased out of Catholic parochial life.

All of that being said, here is my list of eight reasons why the current attitude in the Church towards the Traditional Latin Mass after Traditionis Custodes disturbs me:

1. It makes no sense. The Catholic Church ("catholic" meaning "universal") is very diverse. We have unity in diversity. In West and East, there are 24 autonomous Churches in communion with one other, making up the universal Catholic Church. Each of these Churches (and they are truly individual Churches) have their own customs, spirituality, traditions, and liturgies. Some of the Churches have more than one liturgy - for example, the Eastern Ruthenian Catholic Church celebrates both the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and Saint James. To say that two so-called "forms" of the Roman liturgy cannot coexist, or that the ancient one that nourished so many Saints can suddenly be considered harmful, especially when the "Ordinary Form" is merely 60 years old and is arguably full of problems and deficiencies (the subject of a future post), sounds ridiculous to this priest.

2. It ostracizes well-meaning Catholics. Traditionis Custodes does not affect those communities who offer the Traditional Mass exclusively (so far). It affects and makes it practically impossible to have the Traditional Mass in diocesan parishes, with few exceptions. What message does this send - that these (normally young) families are not a part of their local parish but rather must gather in the parish gym or conference center, if they are lucky enough to have the Mass there at all? If you believe that those Catholics attending the Traditional Mass at a diocesan parish somehow "deny the Second Vatican Council" or are "making a statement against the Novus Ordo," I invite you to speak with them. If they wanted to make a point or be rebellious, there are plenty of others groups nearby with which they could associate themselves. I find that about 95% of them are just trying to do the best they can for their families and their faith. Speak with them yourselves and then make your judgment.

3. It gives anti-Catholics ammunition. The Eastern Orthodox look at us and are appalled. They recognize the problems inherent in the Novus Ordo Mass. When the more moderate Orthodox Christians speak about re-establishment of communion with Catholics, they speak about how they could not worship according to the Novus Ordo. They accept the Traditional liturgy (for them, the Liturgy of Pope Gregory) as completely Orthodox. Right now they look at us and laugh, proving their opinion that they have the true Faith.

4. It divides bishops. As Our Lady of Akita said, bishop will be against bishop. Some bishops completely support the Traditional Mass and try to make it as available as possible, while others use Traditionis Custodes to get rid of it. It is truly "bishop against bishop." Other bishops were completely supportive of Summorum Pontificum and then did a complete 180 once Traditionis Custodes was released. Bishops are not local CEOs of the pope - they are leaders of their particular (diocesan) Churches, although few act as such.

5. It pits Pope against Pope. Pope Francis practically reversed and stated the opposite of Pope Benedict XVI in regards to the Traditional Mass. Where is the continuity of these popes, the "Guardians of Tradition"? Pope Benedict declared that the Traditional Mass is good, has always been good, can not all of a sudden be considered to be harmful, and should be a part of parish life and not exiled into personal parishes. A few years later, Pope Francis spoke about the Traditional Mass as if it were a danger. The papacy is meant to be a source of continuity and organic development, not changing policies as if it were a democratic presidency. Again, non-Catholics and our enemies look at us and laugh.

6. It encourages disobedience.  I have many friends in the SSPX and other so-called "irregular" groups. Priests can be friends without seeing eye-to-eye on everything. I don't agree with all of their stances and all of their actions, but I leave it for the Church and God to judge. Nevertheless, can we blame souls for going to these groups when their own diocesan bishops are practically telling them that they are not wanted or welcome in their own parish churches? I firmly believe that souls have a right to the Traditional Mass if they so choose, so it is unfortunate that they often have no other choice than to seek out one of these "irregular" groups. It does not have to be like this, and it is the fault of bishops.

7. Holy Mass deserves a fitting location. Even the most accommodating bishops who have allowed several Masses in their diocese have exiled it like a disease out of their parish and into gymnasiums. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is meant to be offered in a consecrated space (consecrated means set apart for a holy purpose). Is there honestly no time of day where the parish church is not in use and the Traditional Mass can be offered there?

8. Traditionis Custodes seeks to eliminate the Traditional Mass altogether. The pope has stated that the allowances for the Traditional Mass are temporary, so that in "due time" all will worship according to the Novus Ordo. All that I can say is: good luck. Faithful souls will not and should not stop fighting and seeking out this form of the Mass. It is here to stay. If anything, Summorum Pontificum was around for such a long time that 14 years worth of seminarians were exposed to and fell in love with the Traditional Mass. Its memory will not and should not go away. It is our heritage and always will be. Who knows what the next pope will do, but tradition will not be suddenly ripped out of the hearts of our seminarians and young priests, nor will the young families abandon it.

---------------------------------------------------

Do you have a question for Father Commentator, or is there a topic you would like to see covered on this blog? Email him at: FatherCommentator@gmail.com 

Synod: Testimony of [Eastern Orthodox] Metropolitan of Job (Getcha) of Pisidia

The so-called "Synod on Synodality" is well underway.  This synod (in Greek, literally "walking together") is, according to Pope Francis, meant to be a chance to "hear the voice of the entire Church," and to be "an exercise in mutual listening." Bishops, priests, religious men and women, and laity are all involved in the discussion. Unfortunately, this exercise is a novelty in the Church, and it is far different than what Church synods were over the past 2,000 years.

While the Eastern Orthodox are material heretics and schismatics, there was a recent intervention (below) by an Orthodox bishop who is an observer of the synod. His intervention explains the understanding of a traditional synod in the East, which was also the traditional understanding of a synod in the Western Church until modern times. His intervention is brief and ends abruptly, but this is because only a few minutes are allotted to each person for an "intervention." 

We should thank our brother from the East for his insight. As he rightly points out, a synod is an exercise of Church authority (bishops), and not some sort of democratic vote involving Christians of every state of life.

Article taken from Vatican News:

At the presentation of the Fourth General Congregation of the Synod, Metropolitan Job (Getcha) of Pisidia, Co-President of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, offers a reflection on the experience of synodality in the Orthodox Church.

Intervention of His Eminence Metropolitan of Pisidia Job (Getcha)

XVI General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishop

Vatican, 9 October 2023

Your Holiness,

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Above all, I would like to express my gratitude for the honor granted to the Orthodox Church to participate in this Synod of Bishops, and to the first throne of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to be represented here, and to be able to express itself to bear witness to the practice of synodality in the Orthodox Church.

For the Orthodox, synodality corresponds to the practice established by the first ecumenical council (Nicea, 325) of gathering the bishops of a region at least twice a year under the presidency of their protos (cf. canon 5). This synodality is best described by Apostolic Canon 34: “The bishops of the people of a province or region [ethnos] must recognize the one who is first [protos] amongst them, and consider him to be their head [kephale], and not do anything important without his consent [gnome]; each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese [paroikia] and its dependent territories. But the first [protos] cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord [homonoia] will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit”.

Thus, in light of this text, it appears that:

1)      A synod is a deliberative meeting of bishops, not a consultative clergy-laity assembly.

2)      There cannot be a synod without a primate/protos, and there cannot be a primate/protos without a synod.

3)      The primate/protos is part of the synod; he does not have superior authority to the synod, nor is he excluded from it.

4)      The concord/homonoia which is expressed through the synodal consensus reflects the Trinitarian mystery of the divine life.

It is through this practice of synodality, as described by the Apostolic Canons and the canons of the First Ecumenical Council, that the Orthodox Church has been administered over the centuries until the present day, although the frequency and constitution of the synods may vary from one local autocephalous Church to another.

In light of this, we could say that the understanding of synodality in the Orthodox Church differs greatly from the definition of synodality given by your present assembly of the Synod of Bishops. 

Nevertheless, it should be admitted that in certain historical circumstances the Orthodox Church has involved the clergy and laity in synodal decision-making. In the Ottoman empire, the election of Primates was carried out by clergy-laity assemblies. In the 17th century, the Ecumenical Patriarchate prescribed that the Metropolitan of Kiev be elected by a clergy-laity assembly in Kiev. Two centuries later, in Russia, the Slavophiles, inspired by the theology of communio of the Tübingen school, forged the concept of sobornost, wanting to involve all the components of the Church in its administration. This culminated at the beginning 20th century in the local council of the Church of Russia (Moscow, 1917-1918) which proposed that ecclesial decisions be taken by a council (sobor) consisting of representatives of the episcopate, clergy, monks and laity. Nevertheless, the Bolshevik revolution did not allow the implementation of this new mode of administration in the Church. However, in the Church of Cyprus, until today, bishops are elected not exclusively by the episcopate, but also by the clergy and the laity: at the first stage, the entire population of the Island votes from the list of all the candidates, then, in a second step, the synod of bishops chooses one from the three candidates having obtained the majority of votes.

Nevertheless, the case of the Church of Cyprus constitutes an exceptional case in contemporary Orthodoxy, where, otherwise, the practice of synodality implies exclusively an assembly of bishops. Thus, the Holy and Great Council (Synod) of the Orthodox Church which gathered in Crete in 2016 was made up of 162 delegated bishops, while the 62 advisors (clergy, monastics and laity) that were present did not have the right neither to speak, nor to vote. 

 

Thank you for your attention!

------------------------------------------

Do you have a question for Father Commentator, or is there a topic you would like to see covered on this blog? Email him at: FatherCommentator@gmail.com